MARIETTA — Attorneys for Waffle House CEO Joe Rogers Jr. and an Acworth woman who accuses him of sexual battery are trying to get each other to divulge the names of anyone they believe has had sex with the restaurant’s chief executive dating back to 2003.

Rogers, as well as the attorneys who represent his accuser, Mye Brindle, appeared in Cobb Superior Court Tuesday to present a series of pre-trial motions mostly having to do with information to which each party thought the other had access.

One of the requests was from Rogers’ attorneys, Jeffrey Daxe and Robert Ingram, who wanted a list of the women whom Brindle suspected or knew had ever had a sexual relationship with their client.

“We asked them to tell us who are these mysterious others who formed the basis of Count 1 of Brindle’s counter claim where she says under oath that several other women had been subject to this predatory behavior,” Daxe said.

David Cohen, who is representing Brindle with Hylton Dupree and John Butters, said they had divulged the name of one other person, Dawn White, who reportedly worked for Rogers in the 1990s.

“Is there anybody that you know of now that you have not provided?” Leonard asked Cohen.

“There is nobody that we know of for certain … there are people we are investigating,” Cohen replied.

Judge Robert Leonard ordered that if there are any names, they are to be turned over to Rogers’ attorneys.

In turn, Cohen asked the same thing of Rogers and his attorneys, but specifically asked for the names of any employees who Rogers may have had sex with since 2003 when Brindle was hired by the CEO.

“I’m just asking them the same question they asked us,” Cohen said.

Daxe argued that their request is different than his in that the list of women Rogers had sex with was irrelevant to whether his acts with Brindle were consensual, which forms the basis for the entire suit.

“It is highly relevant,” Cohen said. “We are entitled to ask others if they were victims of predatorily acts … this question goes to the heart of the claim.”

Leonard eventually ruled that he didn’t believe the sexual history of Rogers was necessary for case discovery.

Cohen also asked for a reaffirmation from Rogers as to whether he engaged in a specific sexual act with Brindle that was reportedly recorded on an audio device.

Daxe said that based on his client’s recollection, he didn’t remember doing the act and that he never heard this on the audio recording.

Leonard said he believed that question was answered in the deposition and that if Cohen wanted to resubmit a motion referencing the act in a different way, he could.

Other information asked for during the hearing included tax returns from both sides dating back 10 years or other financial statements, Brindle’s computer hard drive, medical statements, attorney fee agreements from both sides, and a copy of emails, text messages and phone calls between Brindle, Bazan and Rogers.

Daxe argued that the bank statements were needed to show how financially strapped Brindle was and why she never quit her job or filed a complaint against Rogers.

The two sides were asked to meet after the hearing to determine what type of certifiable financial statement they would consider to determine Rogers’ net worth.

They initially wanted tax returns for the last 10 years but Daxe said that would be difficult being that Rogers files claims in nearly 30 states.

Regarding Brindle’s medical forms, Daxe asked for those in order to prove Brindle never complained to any doctors about her abuse while employed by Rogers for nine years.

They asked for text and phone messages to try to see if Brindle ever complained to family or friends about sexual harassment from Rogers or if the allegations were part of her “conquest,” Ingram said.

“She had the ability to stay away from him if she was weary of him,” he said.

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides